Canadian Dentists' View of the Utility and Accessibility of Dental Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a major reorganization of health and health care research in Canada, a study was performed to investigate the views of Canadian dentists on the utility and accessibility of the results of dental research. A cross-sectional survey design was used. Questionnaires and a postage-prepaid reply envelope were mailed with the December 2001 issue of the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association (JCDA) to all registered Canadian dentists. No second mailing occurred. Of 17,648 questionnaires distributed, 2,797 were returned representing a 15.8 percent response rate. In this sample, 64.3 percent found research findings easily available, 88.8 percent found research findings useful, and 95.8 percent had already changed one or more aspects of their clinical practice due to research findings. Significant differences in preferred means of learning the results of research and preferred formats for written reports of research findings were evident between generalist/clinicians and specialist/researchers. These results suggest that Canadian dentists are interested in the results of research and apply them to their practice, but that there are two main groups (generalist/clinicians and specialist/researchers) with different needs for learning the results of that research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".